But because these same cable operators enjoy a growing monopoly over the uncompetitive broadband market -- they don't have to do that. Instead, they've found that the easiest response to added competition on the TV front is to impose a relentless array of rate hikes on captive broadband customers. There's a myriad of ways they accomplish this, ranging from misleading hidden fees that jack up the advertised price (something they're being sued for), to usage caps and overage fees (which let them not only charge more money for the same service, but hamstring streaming competitors via tricks like zero rating).

But with the U.S. entering a period of rubber stamp regulators, and a lack of telco upgrades resulting in less competition than ever, Wall Street is pressuring cable operators to also jack up the standalone price of broadband services outright. New Street Research analyst Jonathan Chaplin recently predicted that a lack of broadband competition could allow cable providers like Comcast to double already expensive broadband prices over the next year. UBS analyst John Hodulik issued a research note the same week stating that cable operators should specifically jack up the price of standalone broadband service to $80 to $90 per month.

Not too surprisingly, cable operators are already heeding these demands. Analysis from Morgan Stanley this week indicated that cable operators had already hiked the cost of standalone broadband 12% from last year's rates:

"In a note to clients Tuesday, Morgan Stanley said that based on its own survey, cable TV companies hiked broadband prices by 12% to $66 monthly from a year earlier for customers that buy only high-speed internet and not a TV package.

"As video revenue growth is increasingly pressured, leaning on data pricing is tempting to sustain earnings," said Benjamin Swinburne, a Morgan Stanley analyst in a report."

And instead of creating policies aimed at improving competition in what's clearly not a healthy market, the Trump administration's FCC is engaged in the mindless gutting of consumer protections, and the manipulation of data to try and pretend the broadband market's obvious problems don't actually exist.

Wall Street analysts obviously adore this new paradigm of regulatory apathy to the sector's competition woes, and predict cable providers are about to enter a very lucrative period of profit taking. Said enthusiasm is usually masked by the use of rhetoric that obfuscates the real consumer and market harms such cheer leading assists. For example, a research note sent to investors this week by New Street Research analyst Jonathan Chaplin indicates that competitive "headwinds" will soon waver, allowing Comcast to double the amount it currently charges for broadband:

"We have argued that broadband is underpriced, given that pricing has barely increased over the past decade while broadband utility has exploded,” New Street said. “Our analysis suggested a ‘utility-adjusted’ ARPU target of ~$90. Comcast recently increased standalone broadband to $90 (including modem), paving the way for faster ARPU growth as the mix shifts in favor of broadband-only households. Charter will likely follow, once they are through the integration of Time Warner Cable.”

New Street added that “broadband pricing could double from current levels.”

How exciting. Of course while Chaplin tries to argue that broadband pricing has "barely increased" over the last decade, it's important to understand he's talking about the advertised price. Comcast has provided a master class in the tactic of using hidden, sneaky, and/or entirely bogus fees to covertly jack up the cost of service post sale, something both Comcast and Charter are facing numerous lawsuits for. Then there's Comcast usage caps and overage fees -- which is Comcast's charming way of abusing limited competition to raise rates -- while pretending that isn't actually happening.

That brings us to the other major portion of Chaplin's note, which goes on to predict that Comcast should be fairly well insulated from cord cutting. How? Thanks, in part, to Comcast's growing monopoly over broadband and the higher prices that allows:

"The traditional pay-TV market saw the worst loss of subs on record this quarter,” the investor note said. “We don’t expect this trend to change anytime soon; however, we think cable should be somewhat insulated because: 1) they should take share in a declining market, helped by the pull-through effect from growing share in broadband; 2) we don’t think cable makes much money in pay-TV. In fact, the [free cash flow] lost from subs dropping pay-TV is generally recovered through higher HSD pricing.”

As these frustrated DSL users flee to cable just to get current-generation speeds (which is happening faster than ever), they're signing up for broadband and TV bundles that are notably cheaper than TV alone. That doesn't mean these users necessarily wanted cable TV (in many instances the cable box sits dusty in a closet), but they're still paying all the same. Meanwhile, usage caps and overage fees help protect cable TV revenues by making it more expensive than ever to flock to streaming video competitors, and with the looming death of net neutrality, these companies can also exempt their own streaming services while penalizing competitors.

This is, again, something we've built thanks in large part to the bipartisan apathy toward actually doing anything to fix the broadband market. Because actually doing so would upset deep-pocketed campaign contributors, we're apparently content in paying empty lip service to things like "bridging the digital divide," while despised industry giants like Comcast cash in on our collective Congressional and regulatory dysfunction. Enjoy your higher Comcast bill, everyone.

from the room-full-of-villains dept

Back in 2013, Time Warner Cable (now Charter Communications) struck an $8.35 billion deal with the LA Dodgers to create LA SportsNet, the exclusive home of LA Dodgers games. To recoup that money, Time Warner Cable began demanding exorbitant prices from competing cable providers if they wanted access to the channel. Unsurprisingly, all of Time Warner Cable's competitors in the region balked at the $5 per subscriber asking price for the channel. As a result, for three years now a massive portion of Los Angeles hasn't been able to watch their favorite baseball team, since Time Warner Cable's asking price not only kept competing cable operators from delivering the channel, but prohibited over-the-air broadcasts of the games.

Fast forward to this week, when the Department of Justice announced it was suing DirecTV for being the "ringleader" in a collusion effort involving the channel. According to the full DOJ complaint (pdf), DirecTV (now owned by AT&T), worked covertly in concert with local competitors Cox, Charter (before it owned Time Warner Cable) and AT&T (before it owned DirecTV) to coordinate a refusal to pay Time Warner Cable's high prices. The DOJ's statement notes that these companies engaged in "unlawful information exchanges" to coordinate this refusal in violation of antitrust law:

"As the complaint explains, Dodgers fans were denied a fair competitive process when DIRECTV orchestrated a series of information exchanges with direct competitors that ultimately made consumers less likely to be able to watch their hometown team,” said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Sallet of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “Competition, not collusion, best serves consumers and that is especially true when, as with pay-television providers, consumers have only a handful of choices in the marketplace."

Right, except calling any of this "competition" is being rather generous. It's an interesting case in that Time Warner Cable had been broadly considered the bad guy in this equation for the last three years by Dodgers fans, 70% of which couldn't watch their favorite team despite living in Los Angeles. And even after the DOJ lawsuit was filed this week, outlets like the Los Angeles Times were perfectly willing to ignore the illegal behavior, claiming that collusion was ok because it punished Time Warner Cable's cash grab to the indirect benefit (sort of) of consumers:

"At a time when there’s open rebellion against soaring pay-TV prices, these companies were clearly acting out of self-interest. The last thing they wanted was to give people another reason to cut the cord. Whatever their primary motive, though, they also were defending their customers’ interests. That’s rare and welcome behavior from an industry that all too often regards consumers as ATMs from which it can make frequent withdrawals."

And while some of that may be true, collusion is still collusion, and the fact that Dodgers fans still can't watch their favorite team can hardly be seen as a win. For whatever it's worth, AT&T, currently trying to sell its $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner (not to be confused with Time Warner Cable) to regulators, was quick to remind everybody that it didn't own DirecTV at the time this occurred:

"The reason why no other major TV provider chose to carry this content was that no one wanted to force all of their customers to pay the inflated prices that Time Warner Cable was demanding for a channel devoted solely to LA Dodgers baseball. We make our carriage decisions independently, legally and only after thorough negotiations with the content owner. We look forward to presenting these facts in court."

It's an amazing case where in reality everybody is the bad guy, and despite companies colluding and covertly exchanging sensitive data, nobody really wound up benefiting. Well, except perhaps those that were able to cut the cord because they don't watch baseball.

from the shoot-the-messenger dept

Late last year, Netflix raised rates on the company's new streaming subscribers from $9 a month to $10 a month. Existing subscribers were grandfathered in at the previous rate until last May, when they too saw the price hike. Reporting the company's earnings this week, Netflix noted that it "only" added 1.7 million new subscribers worldwide. And while that's still pretty impressive at a time when most major cable companies are slowly bleeding subscribers, that's still well below the 2.5 million Netflix expected to add. The most likely reason for the dip? Price hikes (though foolishly blocking VPN users may have also played a role).

But in a Netflix letter to investors this week (pdf), the company tried its very best to try and blame the press coverage of its rate hikes -- not the rate hikes themselves -- for the company's slower than expected growth:

"Gross additions were on target, but churn ticked up slightly and unexpectedly, coincident with the press coverage in early April of our plan to un­grandfather longer tenured members and remained elevated through the quarter. We think some members perceived the news as an impending new price increase rather than the completion of two years of grandfathering."

It was the press coverage of your staggered rate hikes that annoyed users? It was member "perception" of that news that was to blame for people leaving? That's some very Comcast-esque spin from Netflix, who throughout the letter consistently replaces the phrase "price hike" with "grandfathering" as if the investors they're talking to aren't bright enough to tell the difference (and perhaps that's true):

"While un­grandfathering and associated media coverage may moderate near ­term membership growth, we believe that un­grandfathering will provide us with more revenue to invest in our content to satisfy members, thus driving long­term growth. Over the second half of this year, we’ll complete un­grandfathering. Our three ­tier pricing (in the US: $7.99 SD, $9.99 HD, and $11.99 UHD) is working well for us and for new members, and our gross additions remain healthy."

Of course to be fair, one small U.S. price hike isn't really much of a big deal for a company that just expanded into 130 more countries only back in January. Also, if you recall, the internet media went into histrionics a few years ago after Netflix bungled its DVD arm spin off (Qwikster, RIP) and imposed a different rate hike, one many analysts insisted spelled doom for the company. The reality is most people still find Netflix to be an incredible value in the age of soaring legacy cable TV prices, and the company still has some leg room on both international growth and pricing.

But just like its traditional cable counterparts, Netflix is going to start having to feed insatiable investors with either additional international growth (likely China), or price hikes on existing customers. And just like any innovator pressured by Wall Street's incessant hunger for more, the company's strategy will slowly but surely shift from disruption to turf protection as streaming competitors arise and cable figures out it needs to compete on price. And while these recent hikes may not be dramatic, they're arriving as Netflix's overall catalog has shrunk in the last few years by as much as 40% by some estimates.

So while the Netflix of today remains a better value and more consumer friendly on issues like net neutrality (usually), the decision to start charging more for less -- then blaming the press when consumers balk -- is a relatively Comcast-esque move that may not bode well for the Netflix of tomorrow.

from the tomato,-tomahto dept

Last week, we noted how Verizon had unveiled some new wireless data plans intended to be a competitive response to T-Mobile. In very Verizon-esque fashion, the new plans involved first and foremost raising already-industry high data prices another 17%, then scolding media outlets that called it a rate hike. The new plans also involved taking a number of ideas T-Mobile and other carriers had implemented years ago, then somehow making them worse.

For example, Verizon belatedly introduced a "Carryover" rollover data option. Under most implementations of this idea (as with T-Mobile), you're allowed to take any unused data at the end of the month and store it in the bank for future use. But under Verizon's implementation, this data only lasts one month -- and you have to burn through your existing allotment of data before it can even be used. This is Verizon's attempt to give the illusion of offering an innovative and competing service, but saddling it with caveats to make it incredibly less useful.

Reality: The price per GB is lower, across the board. The price went from $30 to $17.50 per GB on the S size plan and from $5.56 to $4.58 on XXL.

This is, of course, not unlike the cable industry trying to claim you're not really paying too much for cable because you're now getting more amazing value per channel. In reality, usage caps are already arbitrary constructs with no ties to real-world costs, and Verizon's entire plan structure is carefully built to drive as many customers to the most expensive data plans. Plans they may not need, but sign up for simply because they have no idea what a megabyte even is, and want to avoid any risk of absurd $15 per gigabyte overage fees.

More amusing perhaps is Verizon's attempt to claim that the Carryover data plan outlined above isn't just copying a relatively good idea and making it worse (and charging more), it's Verizon's incredible delivery of "the entire package" and an "incredible value":

Myth: Verizon is copying the competition with introducing Carryover and Safety Mode; Verizon’s competitors offer the same type of plans, but for less money.

Reality: No other wireless company can offer the entire package. We bring together options customers tell us they want, in a new plan with incredible value - and a new My Verizon app that puts you in control - all on the best network.

Verizon's modus operandi in response to heightened competition from T-Mobile has been to pretend that the company's network is just so good, it doesn't have to compete on price. In fact, as T-Mobile has applied more and more pressure, Verizon has gone so far as to claim that "price sensitive" customers don't matter. But that's not how real competition works. You don't get to magically choose when you have to compete on price, though with a generation of being a government-pampered duopoly under its belt, Verizon executives clearly believe otherwise.

Verizon's tactic of charging "premium pricing for a premium service" worked for a while, but as T-Mobile's network improves and the company has started hoovering up the sector's valuable postpaid subscribers, Verizon's been forced to take more serious notice. So far Verizon's response has been to try and pantomime competition, assuming that consumers and the media are too stupid to notice the difference. Verizon slowly but surely learning that you don't get to head fake real competitive pressure should prove interesting to watch.

from the you-can-always-make-it-up-with-student-loan-interest dept

The perennial FOIA Reform Masquerade Ball is again under way, with legislators attempting to dodge blustery requests to "cut in" by administration officials and similarly-motivated federal agencies. The dance usually ends with Congressional committee chairmen yanking needles from records and booting everyone out of the dancehall.

Meanwhile, limited headway is being made in another branch of the government, far from the muffled protests of overwhelming majorities who have been shouted down by parties of one. The DC Appeals Court has just ruled that the government must extend its FOIA fee discounts to students at educational institutions, rather than just to instructors and administration.

The Department of Defense has fought this the whole way. It wanted a clear-cut delineation between students and staff for reasons only it comprehends, as that would mean saddling those with fewer financial resources (students) with higher fees.

The decision starts out by noting that FOIA fees -- if high enough -- are an effective deterrent to requesters. It then goes on to examine the government's assertion that the category of "educational institution" does not include these institutions' student bodies.

We thus must decide whether the statutory term “educational institution” is properly read, as the Government reads it, to include teachers but exclude students from the category of preferred requesters who are eligible for reduced fees. We conclude that the Government’s reading is inconsistent with the statute. Indeed, we think the Government’s reading makes little sense at all.

[...]

It would be a strange reading of this broad and general statutory language – which draws no distinction between teachers and students – to exempt teachers from paying full FOIA fees but to force students with presumably fewer financial means to pay full freight.

The government -- in making its nonsensical argument that students are not part of educational institutions -- relies on two different pull quotes. One is from a statement Sen. Charles Leahy made way back in 1986 during his legislative push to amend the FOIA to reduce fees for schools.

“A request made by a professor or other member of the professional staff of an educational or noncommercial scientific institution should be presumed to have been made by the institution.”

The government has chosen to believe this excludes students. The court, however, points out that Leahy was actually expanding the definition from what was originally assumed: that only top-level representatives of education institutions (presidents, chairpersons, etc.) could benefit from the lowered fees. The amendment, as written, makes no delineation between staff and students, no matter what the government feels Leahy must have meant when he made that statement.

The second pull quote is from an OMB (Office of Management and Budget) FOIA guideline.

“A student who makes a request in furtherance of the completion of a course of instruction is carrying out an individual research goal and the request would not qualify” as a request made by an educational institution.

With this, you'd figure the DoD has a point. But it doesn't, as the court explains. There are questions that need to be answered and one of them is, "How does the OMB arrive at this conclusion without a single statutory leg to stand on?"

In our view, OMB’s rule for student requests is inconsistent with the statute. FOIA refers broadly to an “educational institution.” As we have explained, we see no good basis in the text or context of FOIA to draw a line here between the teachers and students within the educational institution. The Guideline’s ipse dixit distinction of students from teachers is entirely unexplained and unpersuasive. The Guideline says that a geology teacher seeking information about soil erosion to support her research is entitled to reduced fees. But why not the geology student seeking the same information for the same reason? Crickets. We discern no meaningful distinction for purposes of this statute between the geology teacher and the geology student.

As the court sees it, the OMB's diversion from the statutory mean may be more motivated by its position (the "Budget" part of OMB) to seek higher fees from more requesters -- allowing it to make more money while deterring a certain percentage of FOIA requesters. If so, that's its own problem and one it fixes immediately. The FOIA isn't supposed to be a profit-making enterprise, much less a reliable revenue stream.

But this statute, as we read it, does not empower the Government to pursue fiscal balance or provide relief for the FOIA bureaucracy on the backs of students. The statutory text and context lead us to this simple conclusion: If teachers can qualify for reduced fees, so can students.

The court cautions that its take on the "educational institution" price break is not meant to be read as FOIA: Student Edition and used by attendees to obtain cheap documents for personal or commercial use. It says the government can take steps to prevent abuse by requiring things like copies of student IDs, letters from instructors, etc. That being said, the court is similarly not granting agencies the power to follow the letter of ruling while doing everything they can to break its spirit.

We caution agencies against requiring hard-to-obtain verifications that will have the practical effect of deterring or turning away otherwise valid student FOIA requests.

This is a win for student Kathryn Sack and for all others similarly situated. It returns a fee exemption to a more logical place, rather than leaving it in the shape it was, where it could be used to deter requesters with limited means.

from the self-inflicted-wound dept

As Internet video continues to slowly pick away at cable subscriber totals, most cable companies have absolutely refused to compete on price. Apparently, most of them intend to see just how long they can get suckers cable TV customers to keep paying an arm and a leg for bloated bundles of mostly awful content, only actually competing on price when the problem of cord cutting hits critical mass. Until then, cable execs spend their time either pretending that cord cutting doesn't exist, or proudly fooling themselves into thinking they still offer the best video content value in the streaming video and BitTorrent age.

Every so often a cable executive will pop up from milking the cable cash cow to pay a tiny bit of lip service to the idea of lower prices and more flexible cable bundles. The latest case in point is Comcast CEO Brian Roberts, who this week at least acknowledged that the cable TV cash cow is not immortal:

"This conversation that is happening right now only is going to accelerate (cable adaptation). I do think on the other side, however, there is a realization that you can’t keep raising prices forever and [without] either having serious margin change or people saying ‘I’m going to live without some channels.’ I think you’re seeing that tension rise. I think these things have a way of correcting or balancing out before something draconian happens. I’m hopeful that is the case."

Except the Internet video revolution isn't going to magically "correct" itself or "balance out." It's going to swallow the cable industry piece by piece until it finally listens to consumers and starts offering better value and better customer service. And while cable TV customer defections are happening at a slow trickle right now (Comcast lost 69,000 subscribers last quarter), it's only going to accelerate as the options improve. These losses will also start hitting Comcast's voice subscriber totals as wireless service improves, digital voice becomes irrelevant, and Comcast customers look for ways to trim their bloated bills.

As Roberts was busy stating the obvious, many were quick to point out that Comcast's busy imposing all manner of new TV and broadband price increases as is the cable industry's proud fall tradition. Cable TV prices are rising, broadband prices are increasing, DVR, set top and cable modem prices are rising -- and there's always a new, obnoxious, below-the-line fee around the corner. And whether it's set top boxes, net neutrality or last mile competition, Comcast works tirelessly to ensure this skyward price hike status quo remains firmly intact, all while offering the worst customer service in any industry.

So go ahead, cut your cable TV line; Comcast will just take its pound of flesh from your broadband bill via rate hikes, sneaky fees, usage caps and overage charges (or a new $30 fee if you want to avoid usage caps entirely). And because many of Comcast's territories are actually becoming less competitive than ever as telcos exit unwanted DSL markets, there's not much customers can do about it short of building their own community ISP.

from the gotta-help-out-those-corporate-interests dept

As we're in the middle of crunch time for the final TPP negotiations, New Zealand's Prime Minister John Key has finally admitted what many experts have been saying for years -- that under the TPP, drug prices will undoubtedly rise, because it extends monopoly protections on important medicines. Key tries to play this off as no big deal, because it's the government paying for the medicine so the public won't notice (leaving aside the fact that it's their tax dollars). However, folks who actually understand basic economics note that, when the price goes up, access to drugs gets more difficult even in New Zealand, where it's noted that some key life saving drugs have not been made available because they're too expensive. One doctor in New Zealand talked about how other expensive drugs are not available:

He said 300 people died of malignant melanoma each year. Patients would benefit from using the new drug but it cost $100,000 to $200,000 annually for each person. In total that would cost the drug-buying agency Pharmac $30 million to $60 million a year.

Dr Fitzharris said that under TPP it was likely getting access to these new, more effective drugs would be delayed even further.

Medicines New Zealand says the most recent OECD report shows New Zealand comes last out of 20 countries when it comes to access to new medicines.

Back in the US, even a bunch of Congresscritters who voted in favor of giving the USTR fast track authority appear to be having a bit of buyer's remorse as they've asked the USTR to explain why it appears the current draft of the TPP will make drugs more expensive rather than less.

We are concerned that the TPP would fail this scrutiny if it does not meet or exceed the standards set under the May 10th Agreement, reached by House Democrats and the Bush White House in 2007, with respect to timely access to affordable medicines in developing countries.

Specifically, AARP objects to intellectual property provisions in the draft TPP agreement that unduly restrict competition by delaying consumers’ access to lower-cost generic drugs. These anticompetitive provisions include extending brand drug patent protections through “evergreening” drug products that provide little to no new value and prolong high prescription drug costs for consumers, linking approval to market generic or biosimilar drugs to existing patents in a way that protects only brand drugs, and increasing data exclusivity periods for biologics that further delays access by other companies to develop generic versions of these extremely high-cost drugs. These provisions are all designed to ensure monopoly control by brand-name drug companies.

How can the USTR and the Obama administration continue to insist that the TPP is in the public interest when it's abundantly clear that it's in the pharmaceutical companies' interests instead?

from the that's-not-how-this-works dept

There's no doubt that T-Mobile and its smack-talking CEO have been good for the wireless industry, applying pressure on a lot of customer pain points like subsidized devices, international roaming, and long-term contracts and early termination fees. As a result, T-Mobile's been adding more new subscribers than any of the other three major carriers. But as I've noted a few times now, the pricing response to this competition by companies like AT&T and Verizon has been a bit cosmetic and theatrical in nature, since none of the carriers want a real wireless price war.

Sure, there are some occasionally decent promotions but, by and large, the name of the game right now for both AT&T and Verizon is driving network usage and shoving customers as hard as possible toward large, expensive, shared data allotments. Verizon has pretty loudly stated it's not going to seriously compete on price because it believes its network is just that good. The latest example of not-really-price competition comes courtesy of AT&T, who is responding to T-Mobile's competitive pressure by... raising fees and creating entirely new annoying surcharges:

The new activation/upgrade fee for one and two-year agreements is raising from $40 to $45, which gives AT&T the highest activation fee in the industry (Verizon is still at $40 for now). Going forward after August 1, should you choose to sign-up for a new contract to receive a discounted phone, you will pay $5 more than you used to.

In related news, AT&T Next will no longer be a zero-out-of-pocket installment plan. Come August 1, customers who are new to AT&T Next will have to pay a $15 activation fee when they pick up a new phone. This $15 fee also applies to those who bring their own device (BYOD) and sign-up for a new line of service.

So yeah, AT&T's response to price competition is -- to raise prices. And its response to media inquiries so far as to why this is occurring has been total radio silence, since there's not much it could say to defend the practice. Perhaps that's the reason that while T-Mobile is seeing notable growth, AT&T actually lost phone customers last quarter?

There are still a few reasons why AT&T doesn't really have to care what you or the media thinks. One, the company's mammoth lobbying apparatus ensures it still gets favorable treatment, especially on the easily manhandled state level, where most legislators would happily sell their first born to win the company's affections. Two, AT&T still has a stranglehold over a huge swath of wireless spectrum thanks to auction rules that historically favored large companies (though that's changing... slowly). Three, AT&T and Verizon combined still control around 80% or more of the wireless backhaul special access market, which companies like T-Mobile need to pay to access in order to reach their customers.

Of course hammering customers with a bevy of annoying fees is pretty much standard operating procedure in most industries as a way to pretend your advertised rate is staying the same. But AT&T's latest greedy little cash grab is worth remembering the next time industry trade groups like the CTIA are breathlessly insisting that fierce competition is delivering a bonanza of broadband bargains. There is no "wireless price war." It's more of a theatrical pricing improvisational dance.

from the pampered-duopolist dept

Given that the lack of competition keeps broadband prices sky high, it's really no surprise that most ISPs make their pricing as confusing as possible, either hiding what you'll pay behind a prequalification wall, or sacking users with a bevy of bizarre fees to covertly jack up the advertised rate post sale. While the industry is quick to issue a slew of press releases every time they bump their downstream speeds a few megabits, they'll usually do their best to avoid mentioning what customers pay for the honor of these faster services, well aware that they're only drawing additional attention to competitive shortcomings.

Still, even with layers upon layers of obfuscation, broadband ISPs will usually tell you what they charge users when pressed. Not so with FairPoint. When an industry outlet recently reached out to FairPoint as part of a series trying to compare prices, FairPoint actually refused to tell the news outlet how much it charges for DSL service. When pressed, the company would only provide what has to be one of the most long-winded non-answers I've ever seen:

"We offer internet access to both consumer and business customers through a variety of technologies leveraging both copper and fiber infrastructure, including digital subscriber line ('DSL'), dedicated fiber and lit buildings throughout our footprint," FairPoint said in an e-mailed statement. "Certain of these services provide speeds up to 1 gigabit per second. In select markets, we also offer cable modem internet service, 'Fiber to the Home', and wireless internet access. We sell Internet service as both a standalone, managed or packaged solution. Many customers like to simplify vendors and utilize our packaged and bundled solutions to meet their communications needs."

That's code for saying that FairPoint faces so little competition in its territories, it not only doesn't have to disclose how much it charges for service, it doesn't have to care whether you find that kind of stonewalling obnoxious. If you need FairPoint's broadband service, there's a pretty good chance that FairPoint service is your only option, so you'll have to wait until you've actually signed up to truly learn how much you'll get to pay.

Correction: In the initially published version, we accidentally called FairPoint, Frontier in some places. We apologize for the error.